"What is the NRA thinking?" Tom Gresham asked on last Sunday's Gun Talk Radio Show.
"You know, I've had some problems with NRA in the past," he explained, "but when you start taking credit for what other people are doing, that's over the line."
Tom's guest was Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb, and they were discussing "Victory in Chicago" by NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox, a recapping of the McDonald v Chicago case that resulted in a Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment applies not just to the national government, but also to state and local ones.
So what was the problem?
McDonald wasn't NRA's case. It was funded by the Second Amendment Foundation. Nowhere in Cox's piece did he acknowledge that, nor mention lead attorney Alan Gura.
He's repeating a deliberate and confusing point about consolidation that I called him out on when he made the same claim in a July 2010 GUNS & AMMO column--while the cases were consolidated in the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, they were separated at the Supreme Court level and petitioned individually--and SCOTUS chose to hear SAF's case, not NRA's.
At the time, NRA apologists dismissed the distinction as "nit picking." Excuses were made about Cox not being a lawyer, so we shouldn't expect him to be so precise. It was even suggested that the column was ghost-written by a staffer.
Perhaps. But he--or they--just did it again. There's no question that this tack is calculated.
Especially when you consider a long history of the Association claiming sole credit for joint ventures. I've called them on it many times in the past, including cases involving New Orleans gun confiscations and the San Francisco handgun ban (be sure and check internal links for additional observed incidents).
And the other constant? SAF gives credit where due.
I've been following Tom Gresham's work for years now--I've been a guest on his program numerous times, most recently being invited to participate in his 15th anniversary show. I can tell you from personal experience you'll find no one in the Second Amendment community who is more fair-minded, down-to-earth and level-headed. He's a good moderating influence for ornery radicals like me and a genuinely nice person. He's also an NRA life member, and has literally recruited thousands of members for the NRA.
I felt it necessary to go over those credentials to establish that we're not talking about someone with an axe to grind or any agenda other than to advance the right to keep and bear arms. Overall, NRA has had no stronger supporter over the years. For him to characterize NRA's credit-claiming as a "stunt" is no small matter.
And NRA must know this. That they, for the first time, will not be sending representatives to SAF's Gun Rights Policy Conference, especially since it's the Silver Anniversary for the event, tells me they don't want to have to face other gun rights activists (not to mention invited speaker Otis McDonald!) and take direct questions about this--and more.
How much more? Go listen to the show. Gottlieb comes on about midway through.
Comments
I was astounded at the September 2010 American Rifleman article on Mcdonald v Chicago with the photo shoot of wayne lapdog at the microphone - 2 pages and not one mention of ALAN GURA or SAF - unbelieveable and insulting.
Fight islam Now
The ONLY thing about the NRA that is worth anything now is the training department. If someone could come up with a viable alternative, I'd be delighted to dump the NRA.
While I too am extremely disappointed in the NRA over this, we are all on the same side working for the same goals and we need to remember it.
Every NRA member should make sure that they are involved in board selection to ensure that the NRA is going in a better direction in the future.
Support multiple groups who work towards these goals.
No we are not on the same side, when NRA refuses to endorse a positive change to Mr. Reid in Nevada. It may be "telling" that they did not endorse Reid, whom they call a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but when they do not opt for REAL change in Congress, you have to wonder if the CEO and Prime Minister LaPierre are only after securing their own privately-contracted privileges at the expense of our rights. There are a host of problems at the NRA, from no-bid nepotistic contracts, to the latest "claiming of credit" where little or none is due them.
I also believe we are not on the same side. The NRA is on the side of revenue. That is their only goal. They will do whatever it takes to raise money, even if that require stepping on our rights. Look what they did to others with respect to the DISCLOSE Act. They were more than happy for the legislation to pass as long as they weren't affected, to hell with everyone else.
So as not to be taken for a coward, I meant to sign my name to the above comments about nepotism and the NRA - Jim Greaves, Montana
And as we all know "lip service" is cheap - it can be had on most streets for a few bucks, or if one is really "set up well", in the Oval Office.
As a life member of the NRA, all I seem to see today is a desire from them to raise more and more money. They will sell advertizing to anyone with a buck and a lie to tell..
I'm NOT a Life Member of the NRA… and that's by design. Because of that, I regularly get "become a Life Member" mailings from them, which I return (in the postage-supplied envelope) with a letter enumerating the current crop of reasons (the political games with Harry Reid, Kagan, and DISCLOSE, their party line that "school is no place for guns," etc.) why I am thinking of not even renewing when my current membership expires. I like to believe I get more traction with the NRA that way. I certainly don't get it at board balloting time.
I also was to become a life member of the NRA, however, I believe that they like AARP would sell me down the river if necessary. I no longer solely vote for their recommended politicians.
When push comes to shove, the board on any board will do what is best for them and not for those who support them, thanka much, but NO
A lot of us get those envelopes from Chris Cox at NRA/ILA asking for a contribution. I've started sending his material back to him via registered mail with a polite letter stating that the money I would have sent to NRA/ILA went to SAF instead to help defray the costs of their work on McDonald and Heller. Work that NRA/ILA should have done but didn't. I also enclose a copy of the check made out to SAF to show my money is where my mouth is. Do I think it will make any difference? Maybe not, but SAF deserves the money and has recently had a better track record with their much smaller resources than NRA/ILA has. And who knows, maybe NRA will get the message like they seem to have done on the Reid endorsement fiasco.
I am an Endowment Lifer of the NRA, ready to give some more ..... Stunts like this are why I have sent my extra money this year to SAF and not the NRA....
I am not ready to leave the NRA even though their actions have been very irritating to me lately. I think the NRA has just lost its way. The people that revived the organization 20 years ago are too comfortable with their positions now. They have ceased being fighters and are apparently more interested in playing beltway political power games than in defending the 2nd amendment at this point in time. They need to be shown the door. I think the NRA will be fine once it undergoes a change of leadership. The NRA leaders are making the same mistake that those in charge of Congress are making. They have stopped representing the people who vote them in and likely do not understand the anger they are causing.
NRA gets the attention of politicians by bombarding their mailboxes with mail from their constituants including those infamous orange post cards. Politicians pay staff to handle an average days volume of mail, but when they get a few hundred thousand extra pieces on a single issue it gums up the works and gets their attention. I would imagine NRA has a similar process and its likely that the wave of letters from members ticked off about Harry Reid had some effect on their decision not to endorse him. Posting here might make you feel better, but if you would respond to NRA's letter requesting a donation with a polite letter refusing and telling them that "their" donation went to SAF or GOA or JPFO or whatever it might have a more positive effect. Now imagine Chris Cox's staff having to deal with 100,000 letters like that and maybe we could have an impact on organization policy. It works for the NRA with politicians. Why wouldn't it work for us with the NRA?
I give all my money now to GeorgiaCarry.Org who has taken away a huge amount of restrictive gun control laws for law-abiding license holders, and the Second Amendment Foundation. They get all my money now.
The ridiculous NRA will never get one more cent of mine. You can be sure of that. The NRA doesn't care about anybody, but the NRA. They don't really care about the gun carry rights of law-abiding citizens.
The NRA won't change with a change in the Board, because the current group of oligarchs running the NRA control who gets onto the Board. Voting there has about the same value as voting in the general election for President of the United States. A different party producing the same results. Who was it that said the definition of insanity was doing the same thing time and again, while expecting different results?
The NRA has been a party to all of the damaging gun control legislation since (and before?) the GCA of '68. They may say they were acting to keep the legislation from being worse than it might have been, but that is just an excuse. The progressives/liberals are perfectly happy to have us compromise our rights away, while they refuse to give an inch themselves. The NRA plays the "Washington Game", giving up our rights piecemeal. That is why I quit the NRA in 1997, after belonging for twenty years. I am a life member of GOA, a member of JPFO, and have donated to SAF. The NRA exists only to enrich the NRA. If you cling to them, in a few years the only place you will be able to see your firearms will be in their museum.
It's a sad day when one has to explain to the NRA what the phrase, " ... Shall not be infringed." means.
[W3]
Send back their letters asking for money,telling them it went to G.O.A----S.A.F.ect
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!